naming a language

[Pamela Munro]

Is there a reason not to call it Övdalska, following the speakers' 
usage? That always seems like the best policy to me, unless there is 
some confusion. (Very interesting!)

Pam

Henrik Rosenkvist wrote:
> Dear Funknetters,
>
> the last couple of years me and some of my colleagues have been 
> working with a language variety which traditionally has been 
> considered a Swedish dialect, but which, from a pure linguistic 
> perspective, probably should be considered a language of its own. In 
> the near future, we will publish some studies in this field in 
> English, and we have been debating what we should call this language 
> in English.
>
> The Swedish name for the dialect is Älvdalska (/älv/ = river, /dal/ = 
> valley, -/ska/ = -ish, as in Danish etc.). The speakers themselves say 
> "Övdalska". We do not consider /Elfdalian/ an option (it is an exonym 
> and has unwanted connotations), but are trying to decide between the 
> alternatives  /Oevdalian/ and /Övdalian. /The former may sound 
> archaic, but the latter contains the Swedish <ö>.
>
> Considering the great experience in the field of typology which this 
> list represents, could you possibly guide us in this matter? We expect 
> that our coming work will have some impact, and would like to make the 
> right choice from the beginning. So, what is the best choice? Are 
> there better English alternatives?
>
> The speakers themselves are quite illitterate when it comes to foreign 
> languages, by the way, and they are not able to aid us.
>
> all the best
>
> Henrik R.
>

-- 
Pamela Munro,
Professor, Linguistics, UCLA
UCLA Box 951543
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543
http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm